Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: an analysis from a middle income country
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44753Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Cost-utility analysis, Robotic-assisted arthroplasty, Total knee arthroplastyAbstract
Background and purpose: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) can enhance surgical precision. In middle-income countries (MICs), constrained fiscal space and the double burden of rising demand for high-cost technologies and competing public-health priorities—unlike high-income countries with broader fiscal headroom and low-income countries with limited adoption of expensive innovations—make adoption decisions for RATKA particularly challenging. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness analysis (using a cost-utility framework) of RATKA vs conventional TKA (COTKA) from a societal perspective in Thailand as a MIC.
Methods: A discrete event simulation model was employed to compare the cost-effectiveness of unilateral RATKA with COTKA over 4.5 years from a societal perspective, using patient-level data from January 2018 to June 2022 from an arthroplasty center in Thailand. Patients were propensity matched to balance comorbidities. Base case analysis assumed 1 robot performs 434 TKA cases per year with an anticipated lifespan of 12.5 years. We considered direct medical, non-medical, and indirect costs, alongside quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from a societal perspective. We calculated incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as the main outcome measures. Sensitivity analyses and 10 scenario analyses were performed exploring various possible settings. Threshold analyses determined combinations where RATKA could be cost-effective with positive INMB under the Thai cost-effectiveness threshold of US$4,888 per QALY gained.
Results: The base case analysis involved 157 COTKA and 1570 RATKA matched cases with a mean age of 69 (standard deviation 8 years). The lifetime average outcomes per patient were: COTKA—US$5,031.9 and 9.07 QALYs; RATKA—US$5,666.9 and 9.16 QALYs. The incremental (RATKA–COTKA) differences were +US$633.6 (95% credible intervals [CrI] ~592–675) and +0.085 QALYs (CrI ~0.04–0.13), yielding an ICER of US$7,436.6/QALY. RATKA was not cost-effective compared with COTKA, with an INMB of –216.9 US$/patient. The probability of RATKA being cost-effective at the Thai cost-effectiveness threshold was 44.3%. For RATKA to be economically attractive, 1 robot must operate on at least 640 TKA cases/year over 12.5 years. 3 scenarios found RATKA to be cost-effective: (i) maximal robot utilization (850 cases/year); (ii) lowest capital costs (611,060 US$/robot) with high efficacy for RATKA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.6); and (iii) extreme efficacy of RATKA in reducing complications (HR 0.024).
Conclusion: In the context of MIC, a broad adoption of RATKA is not economically attractive as treatment of end-stage knee osteoarthritis patients compared with COTKA.
Downloads
References
Evans J T, Walker R W, Evans J P, Blom A W, Sayers A, Whitehouse M R. How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019; 393: 655–63. doi. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32531-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32531-5
Dooren B-J van, Bos P, Peters R M, Steenbergen L N van, Visser E D, Brinkman J M, et al. Time trends in case-mix and risk of revision following hip and knee arthroplasty in public and private hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis based on 476,312 procedures from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 307–18. https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.40906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.40906
Huang Y, Lee M, Chong H C, Ning Y, Lo N N, Yeo S J. Reasons and factors behind post-total knee arthroplasty dissatisfaction in an Asian population. Ann Acad Med Singap 2017; 46: 303–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.V46N8p303
Nakano N, Shoman H, Olavarria F, Matsumoto T, Kuroda R, Khanduja V. Why are patients dissatisfied following a total knee replacement? A systematic review. Int Orthop 2020; 44: 1971–2007. doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04607-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04607-9
Narkbunnam R, Pornrattanamaneewong C, Ruangsomboon P, Chareancholvanich K. Alignment accuracy and functional outcomes between hand-held navigation and conventional instruments in TKA: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23: 1017. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05872-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05872-y
Ruangsomboon P, Ruangsomboon O, Pornrattanamaneewong C, Narkbunnam R, Chareancholvanich K. Clinical and radiological outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 60–79. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.9411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.9411
Ruangsomboon P, Ruangsomboon O, Osman K, Pincus D, Mundi R, Tomescu S, et al. Clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of robotic assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Robot Surg 2024; 18: 255. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01949-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01949-z
Parratte S, Pagnano M W, Trousdale R T, Berry D J. Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: 2143–9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.01398
Abdel M P, Ollivier M, Parratte S, Trousdale R T, Berry D J, Pagnano M W. Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on survival and functional outcomes of modern total knee arthroplasties with cement: a concise follow-up at 20 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100: 472–8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.01587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01587
Vermue H, Tack P, Gryson T, Victor J. Can robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty be a cost-effective procedure? A Markov decision analysis. Knee 2021; 29: 345–52. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.02.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2021.02.004
Rajan P V, Khlopas A, Klika A, Molloy R, Krebs V, Piuzzi N S. The cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus manual total knee arthroplasty: a Markov model-based evaluation. Jo Am Acad Orthop Surg 2022; 30: 168–76. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00309
Lencucha R, Neupane S. The use, misuse and overuse of the ‘low-income and middle-income countries’ category. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009067
Eze P, Ilechukwu S, Lawani L O. Impact of community-based health insurance in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS One 2023; 18: e0287600. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287600
van Hees S G M, O’Fallon T, Hofker M, Dekker M, Polack S, Banks L M, et al. Leaving no one behind? Social inclusion of health insurance in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Int J Equity Health 2019; 18: 134. doi: 10.1186/s12939-019-1040-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1040-0
Love-Koh J, Griffin S, Kataika E, Revill P, Sibandze S, Walker S. Methods to promote equity in health resource allocation in low- and middle-income countries: an overview. Global Health 2020; 16: 6. doi: 10.1186/s12992-019-0537-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0537-z
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, Bekker-Grob E de, Briggs A H, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ 2022; 376: e067975. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067975. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067975
Forner D, Hoit G, Noel C W, Eskander A, de Almeida J R, Rigby M H, et al. Decision modeling for economic evaluation in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery: review of techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 164: 741–50. doi: 10.1177/0194599820957288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820957288
Teerawattananon Y, Chaikledkaew U. Thai health technology assessment guideline development. J Med Assoc Thai 2008; 91(Suppl 2): S11-15.
Jämsen E, Peltola M, Eskelinen A, Lehto M U K. Comorbid diseases as predictors of survival of primary total hip and knee replacements: a nationwide register-based study of 96 754 operations on patients with primary osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72: 1975–82. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202064. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202064
Riewpaiboon A. Standard cost lists for health economic evaluation in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 2014; 97(Suppl 5): S127-134.
Riewpaiboon A. Measurement of costs for health economic evaluation. J Med Assoc Thai 2014; 97(Suppl 5): S17-26.
Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M, Ramos-Goñi J M, Tongsiri S, Ingsrisawang L, Teerawattananon Y. The EQ-5D-5L Valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2018; 18: 551–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574
Sires J D, Craik J D, Wilson C J. Accuracy of bone resection in MAKO total knee robotic-assisted surgery. J Knee Surg 2021; 34: 745–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1700570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1700570
Tangcharoensathien V, Witthayapipopsakul W, Panichkriangkrai W, Patcharanarumol W, Mills A. Health systems development in Thailand: a solid platform for successful implementation of universal health coverage. Lancet 2018; 391: 1205–23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30198-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30198-3
Sumriddetchkajorn K, Shimazaki K, Ono T, Kusaba T, Sato K, Kobayashi N. Universal health coverage and primary care, Thailand. Bull World Health Organ 2019; 97: 415–22. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.223693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.223693
Konopka J F, Lee Y, Su E P, McLawhorn A S. Quality-adjusted life years after hip and knee arthroplasty. JBJS Open Access 2018; 3: e0007. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00007
Troendlin F, Frieler S, Hanusrichter Y, Yilmaz E, Schildhauer T A, Baecker H. Persistent fistula for treatment of a failed periprosthetic joint infection: relic from the past or a viable salvage procedure? J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 544–9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.09.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.09.012
Hansson E, Hagberg K, Cawson M, Brodtkorb T H. Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B: 527–34. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B4.BJJ-2017-0968.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B4.BJJ-2017-0968.R1
Hungerer S, Kiechle M, von Rüden C, Militz M, Beitzel K, Morgenstern M. Knee arthrodesis versus above-the-knee amputation after septic failure of revision total knee arthroplasty: comparison of functional outcome and complication rates. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18: 443. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1806-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1806-8
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects 2019, Online Edition. Rev. 1. n.d.
Resende M H F, Yarnell C J, D’Souza R, Lapinsky S E, Nam A, Shah V, et al. Clinical decision analysis of elective delivery vs expectant management for pregnant individuals with CPVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Gynecol MFM 2022; 4: 100697. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100697
Thavorncharoensap M, Teerawattananon Y, Natanant S, Kulpeng W, Yothasamut J, Werayingyong P. Estimating the willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year in Thailand: does the context of health gain matter? Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2013; 5: 29–36. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S38062. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S38062
Trowman R, Migliore A, Ollendorf D A. Health technology assessment 2025 and beyond: lifecycle approaches to promote engagement and efficiency in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2023; 39: e15. doi: 10.1017/S0266462323000090. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462323000090
Batailler C, Caton J, Lustig S. Global perspective of innovation in hip and knee replacement in 2020. SICOT J 2020; 6: E1. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2020043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2020043
Dy C J, Marx R G, Ghomrawi H M K, Pan T J, Westrich G H, Lyman S. The potential influence of regionalization strategies on delivery of care for elective total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.017
Strong M, Oakley J E, Brennan A. Estimating multiparameter partial expected value of perfect information from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample: a nonparametric regression approach. Med Decis Making 2014; 34: 311–26. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13505910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13505910
Heath A, Strong M, Glynn D, Kunst N, Welton N J, Goldhaber-Fiebert J D. Simulating study data to support expected value of sample information calculations: a tutorial. Med Decis Making 2022; 42: 143–55. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211026292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X211026292
Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro J J, Mar J, Möller J, et al. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force—4. Value Health 2012; 15: 821–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.013
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pakpoom Ruangsomboon, Onlak Ruangsomboon, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Michael G Zywiel, David MJ Naimark
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
